associations on the curriculum design of essential learning in Portugal
4. Results
PART 3 PARTICIPATORY CURRICULUM DESIGN
COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS ON THE CURRICULUM DESIGN OF ESSENTIAL LEARNING IN PORTUGAL
Source: Network analysis questionnaire prepared by the authors.
4.2. Interaction between teachers’ associations by subject areas
4.2.1. Interaction between Teachers’ Associations by subject area: subject area A
The three TAs in subject area A formed their respective teams (groups A-C), with a total of 54 members (nodes) and 508 interaction relationships established between them (edges) (Figure 2). The members of every team collaborated a great deal with each other.
INSTITUTONAL AFFILIATIONS No. ELEMENTS THAT BELONG
TO THE ASSOCIATION No. ELEMENTS THAT DO NOT
BELONG TO THE ASSOCIATION No. CONSULTANTS
School of Basic and/or Secondary Education 90 7 19
Higher Education (not specified by the TAs) 11 – 4
NOVA University of Lisbon 2 – 11
University of Lisbon 7 – 17
University of Porto University of Minho University of Coimbra Polytechnic Institute of Porto Polytechnic Institute of Lisbon Polytechnic Institute of Viseu Polytechnic Institute of Santarém Aberta University
Lusíada University University of Aveiro Catholic University of Porto
João de Deus Higher School of Education Embassy
Institute for Educational Evaluation (IAVE) Language Institute
Foreign University Scientific Society Foreign University Scientific Association
Pedagogical Teachers’ Association TOTAL
1 1 – 1 – 1 – 1 1 – – 1 1 1 – 1 – – 1 – 221
– – – 1 – –
–
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– 2
– 1
8 86
8 4 9 1 1 – 1 Table 4. Number of team members of the associations and their consultants by institutional affiliation.
PART 3 PARTICIPATORY CURRICULUM DESIGN
Source: Prepared by the authors using Gephi 0.9.2.
The three teams formed by the three associations are made up of members whose training is mainly in the subject area, followed by teaching methodologies. Team B also has elements with professional ex-perience in curriculum documents and resources design33, and Team C in the area of teachers’ training.
In terms of links, we can see that associations A, B, and C did not interact beyond the respective members of the team constituted for the elaboration of the EL since no external links to their team can be observed in the graph (Figure 2).
In this graph of subject area A, we can find a trend that will also surface in subsequent graphs:
the coordinators play the role of central connectors or hubs in their teams, actors who have a high number of relationships in the network due to the hierarchical position they hold.
4.2.2. Interaction between Teachers’ Associations by subject area: subject area B
The five TAs in subject area B formed their respective teams (groups D-H) with a total of 51 members (nodes) and 293 interaction relationships established between them (edges) (Figure 3). The members of TA D were the most collaborative within their team.
33 Experience in curriculum documents and resources design does not refer to area of specialisation, instead it means that these individuals have experience in curriculum documents and resources authorship, i.e., they were invited by the TAs be-cause they are authors of textbooks, syllabuses and/or other Portuguese curriculum documents.
Coordinator Teachers' training School administration
Team Member Teachers' training and didatics Subject in the thematic area
External Consultant Education sciences Supervision and assessment/pedagogical guidance
Mediator Teaching methodologies Curriculum documents and resources design
Didatics and teaching methodologies Curriculum/curriculum development ROLE IN THE TEAM SPECIALISATION FIELD/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Figure 2. Representation of the relational dynamics of teachers’ associations in subject area A.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS ON THE CURRICULUM DESIGN OF ESSENTIAL LEARNING IN PORTUGAL
Source: Prepared by the authors using Gephi 0.9.2.
The five teams formed by the five associations were composed of elements whose training is mainly in the thematic area. TA E had some diversity of specialisations: teachers’ education, thematic area, and also elements with professional experience in curriculum documents and resources design34. This association and TA G are the only ones in this subject area that did not invite consultants to join their team.
Regarding interactions, we can see that associations D, F, and G interacted with each other, but only through their coordinators (D1, G1, and F5). In any case, it was the coordinator of TA G that mediated between the three associations, given that there is no connection (edge) between the coordinator of TA D (D1) and TA F (F1). The remaining team members did not take part in this interaction.
Subject area B illustrates another role played by the associations’ coordinators, that of bounda-ry spanners, actors who connect subgroups (cliques or small groups) of a network, playing the role of interface between these subgroups. As we can see in the next associations’ subject areas (see Figures 4 and 5), the coordinators are chiefly the elements that establish the link with the other groups/associations.
34 Experience in curriculum documents and resources design does not refer to area of specialisation, instead it means that these individuals have experience in curriculum documents and resources authorship, i.e., they were invited by the TAs be-cause they are authors of textbooks, syllabuses and/or other Portuguese curriculum documents.
Coordinator Team Member External Consultant Mediator ROLE IN THE TEAM
Teachers' training
School administration Teachers' training and didatics
Subject in the thematic area Education sciences
Supervision and assessment/pedagogical guidance Teaching methodologies
Curriculum documents and resources design Didatics and teaching methodologies
Curriculum/curriculum development
SPECIALISATION FIELD/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Figure 3. Representation of the relational dynamics of the teachers’ associations in subject area B.
PART 3 PARTICIPATORY CURRICULUM DESIGN
Source: Prepared by the authors using Gephi 0.9.2.
The three teams formed by the three associations are composed of elements whose educa-tion is mainly in the subject area, with TA I standing out since all its team members have this specialisation. The team members of TA L and J have more diversified specialisations, rang-ing from teachers’ education, teachrang-ing methodologies, didactics and teachrang-ing methodologies, curriculum documents and resources design, school administration, and education sciences.
Association I is the only one in this subject area that has not invited consultants to join its team.
Association L has no links with other associations in the same area. Associations I and J need-ed a mneed-ediating element (X1) from outside their respective teams to interact. This mneed-ediation occurred only with some elements of the two teams (J1, J2, and J4 versus I1 and I2). These two associations also interacted without mediation through one of the coordinators of TA J (J1) and an element of its team (J4) with TA I through its coordinator (I1) and an element of its team (I2).
4.2.3. Interaction between Teachers’ Associations by subject area: subject area C
The three TAs in subject area C formed their respective teams (groups I-L), aggregating a total of 53 members (nodes) and 515 interaction relations established between them (edges) (Figure 4).
The members of associations L and J collaborated a great deal within their teams.
Coordinator Teachers' training School administration
Team Member Teachers' training and didatics Subject in the thematic area
External Consultant Education sciences Supervision and assessment/pedagogical guidance
Mediator Teaching methodologies Curriculum documents and resources design
Didatics and teaching methodologies Curriculum/curriculum development ROLE IN THE TEAM SPECIALISATION FIELD/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Figure 4. Representation of the relational dynamics of teachers’ associations in subject area C.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS ON THE CURRICULUM DESIGN OF ESSENTIAL LEARNING IN PORTUGAL
Source: Prepared by the authors using Gephi 0.9.2.
In subject areas C and D (Figure 5), the associations needed to resort to mediators from out-side their teams who functioned as boundary spanners, actors who facilitate critical links be-tween two subgroups due to existing conflicts.
4.2.4 Interaction between Teachers’ Associations by subject area: subject area D
The seven TAs from subject area C formed the respective teams (N-S groups), aggregating a total of 57 members (nodes) and 232 interaction relationships established between them (edges) (Figure 5). As shown in Figure 4, TA N presents greater dynamism in the interactions within its team.
Coordinator Teachers' training School administration
Team Member Teachers' training and didatics Subject in the thematic area
External Consultant Education sciences Supervision and assessment/pedagogical guidance
Mediator Teaching methodologies Curriculum documents and resources design
Didatics and teaching methodologies Curriculum/curriculum development ROLE IN THE TEAM SPECIALISATION FIELD/PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
With the exception of the other subject areas, there was practically no collaborative work in as-sociations O and P, where each team member only worked with the respective coordinator. In association P, only three elements (P2, P4, and P5) worked together in the preparation of the EL.
Figure 5. Representation of the relational dynamics of teachers’ associations in subject area D.
PART 3 PARTICIPATORY CURRICULUM DESIGN In this subject area, most of the members of the associations were also invited because of their spe-cialisation in the subject area (AP N, M, R, Q, S). However, TA P is the only one in this subject area and of the remaining ones not to have any members with training in the subject area and to value above all didactics and teaching methodologies, in addition to having members specialising in three other areas: teaching methodologies, teachers’ education and didactics, and curriculum/curriculum de-velopment. It should be stressed that only two associations have elements in the team with training in curriculum/curriculum development, and both belong to this subject area D (TAs P and S).
As seen in other subject areas, not all the associations in this group interacted among them-selves, and TA S does not present external links with the other associations in the same area.
Associations M and N interacted through a mediating element (X2) and also have direct links but only between their coordinators (M1 and N1). Associations O, P, Q, and R have links between their teams mainly through their coordinators (O1, P1, Q1, and R1).
4.3. Synthesis of the interaction between Teachers’ Associations by subject area
In short, the collaboration in the preparation of the EL by the teams formed by the TAs, as meas-ured through the interactions identified in the four networks, took place above all within the teams of the various associations. The associations in subject areas C and A worked more in-tensively within their teams, with more interactions (density = 0.36 and 0.355 respectively) than the others. The connections are also higher in subject area C and A, i.e., the average number of connections (edges) between the nodes of the network (average degree = 19.074 and 18.815 re-spectively). In any case, the interactions between associations in the same subject area are very weak (Figure 2, 3, 4, and 5), where some associations are mostly connected by their coordinators and four associations dialogued through a mediator. The network analysis carried out shows that these are fragmented networks with isolated connected components (11 connected compo-nents). They are called small-world networks, characterised by Watts and Strogatz (1998) as hav-ing a high clusterhav-ing coefficient and short path length between nodes. As we can see in Table 5, the clustering coefficient is very high for all associations by subject area, and team members can reach or be reached by others using few connections for this purpose (average path length).
STATISTICS SUBJECT AREA A SUBJECT AREA B SUBJECT AREA C SUBJECT AREA D
Average network degree 18.815 11.49 19.074 8
Network diameter 1 4 3 3
Average path length 1 2.108 1.528 1.954
Graph density 0.355 0.23 0.36 0.14
Clustering coefficient Connected components
1 3
0.968 3
0.966 2
0.878 3
Source: Network analysis questionnaire prepared by the authors.
Table 5. Gephi statistics used to analyse networks A, B, C, and D.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS ON THE CURRICULUM DESIGN OF ESSENTIAL LEARNING IN PORTUGAL The data show that the teams formed by the TAs to design the EL worked little collaboratively with other associations in the same subject area. These data seem to show that the TAs do not collaborate much with each other, particularly regarding curriculum design.
4.4. Activities carried out by the Associations
Between October 2016 and August 2018, when the EL were completed, the associations drafted and discussed the EL in additional work sessions supplementing the work conducted by the in-itiative of the ME. We now intend to learn what activities were conducted, the curriculum refer-ences that were used, and the outputs that were produced both by the associations individually and in interaction with other associations in the same subject area.
Regarding the activities developed individually by the associations, we presented a set of eight possible activities in the network analysis questionnaire, allowing the respondents to add others and to choose the four most relevant ones by order of importance (from 1 to 4, in descending order of importance). None of the associations added activities. As shown in Figure 6, the most often referenced activities were: (1) Discussion on the suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to the SP; (2) Discussion on the knowledge/skills and learning attitudes that should be selected; and (3) Discussion on the suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to stra-tegic actions. Considering the most frequently performed activities, only the activity Discussion on knowledge/skills and learning attitudes that should be selected appears with a higher degree of importance (seven of the twelve associations that highlighted it consider it the most relevant activity they conducted). Interestingly, while the third most frequently mentioned activity was the discussion on the suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to strategic actions, the activity discussion on pedagogical practices was seldomly mentioned.
Source: Network analysis questionnaire prepared by the authors.
Theoretical literature on the subject
Theoretical literature on curriculum/curriculum design
Knowledge/skills and learning attitudes that should be selected Suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to the Students' Profile
Pedagogical practices
Comparison of curricula/Essential Learning from other countries Suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to strategic actions
Suitability of the four columns of the Essential Learning document
14 16
12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Degree 1 Degree 2 Degree 3 Degree 4 Legend:
Figure 6. Discussion activities developed by the associations in their teams in the elaboration of the Essential Learning.
PART 3 PARTICIPATORY CURRICULUM DESIGN Among the least mentioned activities, besides the discussion on pedagogical practices, are the activities of discussion on the theoretical literature on curriculum/ curriculum design and discussion on the theoretical literature on the subject.
Source: Network analysis questionnaire prepared by the authors.
Regarding the activities developed by the associations that collaborated among themselves, the eight associations that responded (Figure 7) mentioned as the activities most often car-ried out those that took place within their teams. However, they considered the discussion on the suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to strategic actions and the discussion on the suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to the SP as their highest priorities.
4.5. Curriculum documents used by the associations
When drawing up the EL, the ME suggested that the TAs use the syllabuses in place for the subjects, the SP, the framework document for the EL drawn up by the invited curriculum experts (Roldão, Peralta & Martins, 2017), and international curricula such as those of British Columbia, Canada, New Zealand, and Finland, for example. In addition to these working references, we asked in the questionnaire what other instruments were employed by the a ssociations. As we can see in Table 6, the TAs used a huge variety of curriculum reference documents in the discussion within their teams, among which we highlight the various national curriculum documents prepared over a time span of more than twenty years and with quite different intentions and theoretical references: previous syllabuses of the subjects, Learning Outcomes, Curriculum Outcomes, and the National Curriculum for Basic Education – Essential Competencies of 2001.
Theoretical literature on the subject
Theoretical literature on curriculum/curriculum design
Knowledge/skills and learning attitudes that should be selected Suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to the Students' Profile
Pedagogical practices
Suitability of knowledge/skills and learning attitudes to strategic actions
Suitability of of the four columns of the Essential Learning document Comparison of curricula/Essential Learning from other countries
7 8
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Degree 1 Degree 2 Degree 3 Degree 4 Legend:
Figure 7. Discussion activities developed between associations of the same subject area in the elaboration of the Essential Learning.
COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS ON THE CURRICULUM DESIGN OF ESSENTIAL LEARNING IN PORTUGAL
Source: Network analysis questionnaire prepared by the authors.
ASSOCIATION INSTRUMENTS USED WHEN DRAFTING THE EL AP 1
AP 5
AP 11
AP 12
AP 16 AP 13 AP 8
AP 10
AP 14 AP 15
AP 17 AP 18 AP 9 AP 7
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR); International curricula (USA, British Columbia, Canada, and New Zealand curricula).
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR); Theoretical literature on the subject; Didactic literature on the subject.
Previous subject syllabuses; National Curriculum for Basic Education. Core Competencies, 2001;
International curricula (New Zealand, England, Canada); Learning Outcomes.
International curricula (especially Canada and the UK); Theoretical literature on the subject; OECD and UNESCO documents.
Previous syllabuses of the subjects; Theoretical literature on the subject and on specific didactics;
Curriculum Outcomes.
National Curriculum for Basic Education. Core Competencies, 2001; International Curricula (Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore).
Theoretical literature on the subject; Didactic literature on the subject; OECD documents.
Subject Examination Guidelines. Documents by curriculum experts.
Learning Outcomes.
Learning Outcomes; International Curricula.
Curriculum Outcomes.
Curriculum Outcomes; OECD Documents; International Curricula.
Previous syllabus of 2009; International curricula (British Columbia, Canada); National Curriculum for Basic Education. Core Competencies, 2001; Document entitled A Língua Materna na Educação Básica [Mother Tongue in Basic Education]. Core Competencies and Performance Levels, 1997;
Learning Outcomes; Curriculum Outcomes.
Learning Outcomes; International curricula (British Columbia, Canada, Singapore, UK, and New Zealand); Theoretical literature on the subject; Literature on the didactics of the subject; Documents from international associations/organisations in the subject field; EU and OECD documents:
Agenda 2030 for Education, OECD.
Curriculum Outcomes; Research of foreign sister associations.
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR).
Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR); International curricula.
Previous syllabuses; Taxonomic tables; Theoretical literature on the subject.
AP 2 AP 3 AP 4
AP 6
Questions on the tools used to collaborate with other associations were hardly answered, which may be a sign of the divergences in relation to the source curriculum documents. The language associations were the exception, as they all used the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001).
Table 6. Documents used by individual teachers’ associations in developing the Essential Learning.
PART 3 PARTICIPATORY CURRICULUM DESIGN 4.6. Outputs produced by the Associations
The complexity of the elaboration of the EL and the public discussion that the ME wanted to generate around this process and that the associations themselves developed internally is at the origin of the elaboration of outputs beyond the EL.
Table 7 shows that the main outputs produced by the associations were communications at congresses, organisation of meetings, as well as training actions, mainly for their associ-ates. In this regard, one association stands out because it held a massive open online course (MOOC) with the attendance of about 900 teachers.
ASSOCIATION OUTPUTS
AP 1
AP 5
AP 7
AP 9
AP 10 AP 4
– Presentations at TA seminars;
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Results of the consultation with members on the EL;
– Training actions for members.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members;
– Communications in higher education institutions;
- Pedagogical days of teachers’ organisations
– Presentations at TA seminars;
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members;
– Communication in an international seminar and a book chapter.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members;
– Production of lesson plans and activities on EL;
– Elaboration of two thematic notebooks with the respective corrections.
– Presentations at TA seminars;
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members;
– Training for non-members;
– Communication in lectures taught at higher education institutions.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Communications in national meetings of institutes of the subject area.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
AP 2
AP 3
AP 6
AP 11 AP 8
Table 7 – Outputs produced by the TAs following the preparation of the Essential Learning.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Communication at an international congress in the subject area.
AP 12
COLLABORATION BETWEEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS ON THE CURRICULUM DESIGN OF ESSENTIAL LEARNING IN PORTUGAL
Also noteworthy is the scarcity of pedagogical outputs and surveys on the implementation on the ground at the time of the pedagogical experience carried out in schools in the 2017-2018 academic year.
Conclusion
The participation of teachers’ associations in the curriculum design of the EL, a significant el-ement of the current curriculum framework along with the SP, led us to reflect on an apparent conflict between focusing on the content of the subject individuality, of the TAs tradition, and an open curriculum approach, of holistic and transversal perspective, raised by the SP and implicit in the drafting of the EL, of which it is the guiding principle, and whose design would assume a dy-namic of sharing and convergence in the alignment of contents and strategic pedagogical actions.
We then set out to study how the TAs, in this case, those that shared some proximity in the sci-entific area, interacted in the process of creating the EL, seeking to understand whether the in-teractional dynamics that emerged were characterised by convergence or divergence of actions, whether patterns of social interaction were established, which activities they developed togeth-er, how they supported their curriculum action and what outputs resulted from these dynamics during the time they were involved in the curriculum design of the EL. It was also important to know what lessons could be learned from this process that could contribute to the enrichment of teachers’ curriculum practices.
The network analysis that methodologically underpinned our study allowed us to understand that the collaboration between the associations in the same subject area occurred on their own
ASSOCIATION OUTPUTS
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Results of the consultation with members.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Workshops for members.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members;
– Networking and partnerships with similar associations and training centres.
– Results of the consultation with members.
AP 16
AP 17 AP 13
AP 14 AP 15
AP 18
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Training actions for members;
– Training for non-members;
– Publication of a support dossier with teaching materials.
– Communication in congresses/meetings of the TA;
– Results of consultations with teachers before and after initiating the EL process;
– Training actions for teachers and a massive open online course (MOOCs) for 900 people.
– Survey of data on the implementation of EL in schools.
Source: Network analysis questionnaire prepared by the authors.
PART 3 PARTICIPATORY CURRICULUM DESIGN initiative, in addition to the initiatives of the ME, in order to organise the production of the cur-riculum subject documents, was very weak. Collaboration between some of the associations occurred mainly through interaction between their coordinators, without involving the whole team. No less important was the fact that four associations from two different subject areas used a mediator to ensure interaction. The EL curriculum model, guided by the principle of uni-ty of curriculum meaning and by the transversaliuni-ty of competencies to be developed through-out compulsory education, implied interaction between the associations and not only between the associations of the same subject area, but it came up against the subject compartmentalisa-tion inherent in the very designacompartmentalisa-tion and constitucompartmentalisa-tion of the TAs in Portugal, reflecting, among other factors, the tradition of individual work by teachers in the Portuguese education system.
From the activities developed by the associations individually and by the eight associations that worked somewhat collaboratively, we can see that there was little discussion about pedagogical practices, the theoretical literature on the subject and on curriculum/curriculum design, which would imply essential discussions in a curriculum design process and which can be explained in part by the little and late recognition of the teachers’ associations as interlocutors in curriculum reforms, whose first formal participation was in the process of the 1989-1990 Curriculum Reform (Roberto Carneiro Reform) and in the implementation of the Flexible Curriculum Management (1996-2001). These participations, although with contributions in the very formulation of syllabus-es, were mainly of a consultative nature. In 2016, the invitation extended by the ME to teachers’ as-sociations gave them a measure of power over the formal curriculum regarding the definition of EL, allowing a curriculum autonomy such as there was no memory in the history of national educa-tion policy. The little discussion about theoretical literature on the subject may mean an agreement on this matter within the associations and among those who managed to collaborate in some way.
The individual TAs used for the preparation of the EL a multiplicity of curriculum reference doc-uments produced cumulatively and asynchronously over thirty years in Portugal, which was also an inhibiting factor for collaboration. It is therefore revealing that in the questionnaire, most associations did not identify the curriculum reference documents that they had used in collab-oration with other associations. As mentioned above, the situation of the reference curriculum documents in Portugal has become a mosaic that has lost its unity in the three decades since the Roberto Carneiro Reform. The differences in the identification of the various curriculum refer-ences can be explained by the theoretical positions of the associations and also by the fact that some of them had been previously involved in the construction of one reference or another.
Given the complexity of the process of drawing up the EL, which lasted around a year and a half, the TAs engaged in a great deal of internal debate, as can be seen from the network anal-ysis carried out, which culminated in the production of outputs, mainly papers at conferences, and organisation of meetings or training activities. However, we found a scarcity of pedagogical outputs and data on the implementation of EL in schools, which can be in part explained by the traditional work carried out by the associations, less focused on research activities or the pro-duction of teaching materials.
We consider relevant the testimony of four of the eighteen associations interviewed in the fo-cus groups, when they state that the dynamics of the meetings promoted by the ME with all the